That is absolutely correct. No forcing needed. The process is so easy that nothing need be forced. If it's smaller and less complex, place it toward the bottom of the tree. It thus becomes once again obvious that you do not accept modern geology any more than you accept modern biology. The relative dating of fossils makes it impossible to put them in any desired order as you claim. You cannot both accept the dating of fossils and make the claim that you have made. What color is the sky on your planet? How old is the Earth?
What do you not accept about the following presentation? Does it not perhaps omit to mention that all of the features described are actually the result of one big flood?
Do your airy wave-aways and unsupported dismissals include astronomy? (Data from astronomy supports big-bang cosmology and an old universe.) Nuclear chemistry? (Supports radiometric dating, which supports the contention that the fossil series are really fossil series and cannot be explained by your ignorant off-the-cuff inventions.)
And, never mind the order, why do these intermediate forms exist at all? Why do the molecular and embrylogical data paint the same exact picture if the fossil interpretation is all wrong? You didn't deal with that. Why not? What's the problem? Can't read? Can't think? Don't have a story?
Where does your literal Genesis predict the intermediate forms existing at all? (We have established once and for all that you do not accept any line of evidence that would support an age for the Earth greater than about 6K years, haven't we?)
It thus becomes once again obvious that you do not accept modern geology any more than you accept modern biology.Sure I do. For the most part these disciplines do not pretend to have the entire history of the world under their belts. For an evolutionist it matters little where a fossil is found. It must be interpreted in such a manner as to support the notion that life has steadily progressed over billions of years from the most primitive to the more advanced forms.
The other disciplines you mention all have their place and their limits, and each has contributed to general knowledge about the world.
You keep bringing up bones, fossils, and every kind of scientific discipline except direct observation and documentation showing any ambiguity over whether a biological entity should be classified as ape or human. For some reason the ambiguities only come about when bones and fossils are considered. Or do we need to make up "punctuated equilibrium" (another unobserved, undocumented process) to explain a lack of evidence?
You can call evolutionism whatever you wish, but it should be kept from usrping the name "science" for itself as it has done for over a century. It's time is up. A good many folks are figuring that out.